Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Easter-Renewal, Regeneration, Recreation

By Peter Amsterdam

Easter is the day on which Christians celebrate the most significant event in human history—the resurrection from the dead of the crucified God-man, Jesus Christ. It’s an event that forever changed the course of humanity! That day was the first day of God’s new creation. Let me explain.

God created all things, including man, and when He was finished He looked at all He had made and it was “very good.”[1] His original very good creation was changed, however, with the entrance of sin. Once Adam chose to go against God’s will, sin entered God’s created world and sickness, decay, and death were introduced to humanity. From that time forward, people would return to the dust from which they were taken.[2] Adam, the first man, brought sin and death into the world, and God’s creation has suffered sin’s effects ever since.

Fast-forward to the time of Jesus’ life on earth. God the Son, the Word of God, entered humanity as a child born of Mary and of God, without a human father.[3] He was fully God and fully man, the God-man.[4] His mission was to defeat the sin and death which had entered humanity through Adam. He lived a sinless life, was condemned and executed as a criminal, and was buried in a tomb. Three days later, He rose from the dead! He was resurrected!

His resurrection was the first phase of God’s new creation. Jesus’ body was changed and was no longer under the effects of the first creation—the effects of sin and death. God created a new kind of human existence—a human body which was raised from the dead and transformed by the power of God into a body that is no longer affected by death, decay, and corruption. Nothing like this had ever happened in human history! And it will happen again for all of those who believe in Jesus, as believers will be resurrected with their new bodies at the time of Christ’s return (or changed in the twinkling of an eye if they are alive at the time of His return). This will mark the second phase of the new creation.

We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him.[5]

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.[6]

The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.[7]

Jesus’ resurrected body no longer suffered from the torture He had undergone—His back having been torn to shreds from the whipping, His head bloodied by the crown of thorns, His hands and feet and side pierced. He was no longer battered, nor was He exhausted from all He had endured days earlier, but He was alive and vibrant.

His risen body wasn’t a spirit; it was physical, made of flesh and bones, which His disciples touched. He taught them,[8] He walked with them,[9] He cooked for them,[10] and ate with them.[11] He was once together with 500 of them at one time.[12] After 40 days,[13] He ascended bodily into heaven,[14] where He in His new body sits at the right hand of God.[15]

[The disciples] were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”[16]

As Christians and as part of God’s new creation, we can look forward to the time when, upon Christ’s return, He will raise our bodies from the dead! We will receive resurrected bodies like His. The apostle Paul speaks about our bodies raised from death in terms of a seed that is planted, and from that seed the more complete plant grows. The plant is a continuation of the seed, but is different from the seed. He goes on to explain that these new bodies will be imperishable, raised in glory and in power as spiritual bodies. Being imperishable means no aging, sickness, or weariness; we will have bodies that remain forever young and healthy. Our bodies will not have the weaknesses they have now, but will have the full power the human body was meant to have. They won’t be affected by sin and fallen human nature as the natural body is today, but will be fully yielded to and guided by the Holy Spirit as a spiritual body. As one author wrote: In these resurrection bodies we will clearly see humanity as God intended it to be.[17]

Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself.[18]

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.[19]

Someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as He has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.[20]

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. … Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.[21]

God’s new creation will not end with the resurrecting of our bodies, but will continue on beyond that. The third phase will involve all of creation being renewed as well. When Adam sinned, God cursed the ground. The world was no longer the sublime place God made it to be. Sin changed that. But as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection, His victory over sin and death, God will renew the entire world.

The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.[22]

Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.[23]

According to His promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.[24]

I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away[25]

When Jesus died on the cross as an executed criminal, in the eyes of the Jewish people this made Him a failed Messiah, as He had promised the kingdom and didn’t come through. But three days later, when He rose from the dead, that picture changed completely. The truth of His messiahship was evident to those who would accept it. He completed His mission by taking our sins upon Himself and thus reconciling us to God. This mission required His death, but once it was completed, God raised Him from the dead, and in doing so showed the world His approval of what Jesus had done.

Being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name.[26]

After 40 more days on earth, Jesus ascended into heaven, and ten days later a new dynamic was sent into the world—the Holy Spirit. Prior to this time, the Holy Spirit was present and was manifested at times, such as at creation,[27] as well as when empowering certain people to prophesy,[28] or with extraordinary skills[29] or leadership abilities.[30] However, the Spirit wasn’t available to all of God’s children.[31]

After Jesus’ ascension, He sent “the promise of the Father,” which was the Holy Spirit, to dwell in believers in fulfillment of the prophecy in the book of Joel.

Behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.[32]

While staying with [the disciples], He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, He said, “you heard from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”[33]

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.[34]

It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out My Spirit.[35]

When people receive Jesus as their savior, they enter into the new creation, and this makes it possible for the Spirit of God to dwell within them. The work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers is a continuation of the first phase of the new creation that began with Jesus’ resurrection. The effect of salvation and the Holy Spirit dwelling in humanity is expressed as new birth, renewal, and regeneration in the lives of believers. The new birth refers to being born of the spirit as contrasted to being born of the flesh. Renewal is a renovation, a complete change in the believer for the better. Regeneration is the production of a new life consecrated to God, a radical change of mind.[36]

Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.”[37]


Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[38]

When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.[39]

Jesus resurrecting and ascending into heaven, His sending the Holy Spirit to dwell within believers, was the first phase of the new creation, with the second phase to come at Christ’s return, and the third phase being the new heaven and the new earth.

I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God.”[40]

As part of the new creation, God’s Spirit is regularly renewing us, changing us, helping us to put on the mind of Christ, as we develop and reflect some of God’s characteristics by growing in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. As we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us, we continually grow and mature in our spiritual lives; we are renewed and become more Christlike. This is part of the new creation process within us, as we are gradually transformed by the Spirit.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.[41]

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.[42]

The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.[43]

The original creation was altered due to Adam’s disobedience. Through him, sin and death and all of their consequences have affected mankind and the world as we know it. Through Jesus’ obedience, through His death and His resurrection, both we and creation are ultimately redeemed; the process of the new creation has begun and will culminate in the new heaven and the new earth.—And you are part of it!

The creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.[44]

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.[45]

Celebrating the resurrection of Jesus is celebrating the newness of life. Easter is a celebration of one of the major tenets of our faith; it’s a celebration of the ongoing process of God’s new creation, as we await its culmination.

Just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.[46]


If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins … But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.[47]

We have so much to celebrate!—That we live today with God the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and helping, guiding, and renewing us; that we are part of His new creation; that we will live eternally in our new bodies, with perfect health and no effects of aging, with no sickness or disease; and that we have the honor and privilege of sharing this wonderful news with others. For this is the good news of the Gospel: the love that God has for each individual, the offer of everlasting life, of resurrection from the dead, of being a new creature in Christ Jesus today and a part of the overall new creation for eternity.

Our commission is to invite as many as we can to become a new creation, to usher them through the door of salvation, bringing them into a wonderful new world now, and an eternity of happiness in the future. As invitation bearers who go through the highways and hedges of life, may we be motivated by the beauty of God’s gift through Jesus to share it and its blessings with all we can. Happy Easter!

[1] God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 ESV.

[2] By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:19 ESV.

[3] Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18 ESV.

The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” Luke 1:35 ESV.

[4] See the following articles in The Heart of It All series: The God-Man, Part 1, The God-Man, Part 2.

[5] Romans 6:9 ESV.

[6] 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 ESV.

[7] 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 ESV.

[8] Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Luke 24:27 ESV.

[9] Two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. Luke 24:13–15 ESV.

[10] When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. John 21:9–13 ESV.

[11] While they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate before them. Luke 24:41–43 ESV.

[12] He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:6 ESV.

[13] He presented Himself alive to them after His suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. Acts 1:3 ESV.

[14] As they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven.” Acts 1:9–11 ESV.

[15]The Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. Mark 16:19 ESV.

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. Acts 2:32–33 ESV.

[16] Luke 24:37–39 ESV.

[17] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 832.

[18] Philippians 3:20–21 ESV.

[19] 1 John 3:2 ESV.

[20] 1 Corinthians 15:35–38 ESV.

[21] 1 Corinthians 15:42–44, 49 ESV.

[22] Romans 8:21 ESV.

[23] Isaiah 65:17 ESV.

[24] 2 Peter 3:13 ESV.

[25] Revelation 21:1 ESV.

[26] Philippians 2:8–9 ESV.

[27] The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2 ESV.

[28] The Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to [Moses], and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it. Numbers 11:25 ESV.

[29] I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. Exodus 31:2–5 ESV.

[30] Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him. So the people of Israel obeyed him and did as the Lord had commanded Moses. Deuteronomy 34:9 ESV.

Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed [David] in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. 1 Samuel 16:13 ESV.

[31] A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, “My lord Moses, stop them.” But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit on them!” Numbers 11:27–29 ESV.

[32] Luke 24:49 ESV.

[33] Acts 1:4–5 ESV.

[34] Acts 2:32–33 ESV.

[35] Joel 2:28–29 ESV.

[36] Strong's definition of the Greek word paliggenesia: regeneration.

[37] Acts 2:38–39 ESV.

[38] John 3:5–6 ESV.

[39] Titus 3:4–6 ESV.

[40] Revelation 21:1–3 ESV.

[41] 1 Corinthians 2:14–16 ESV.

[42] Galatians 5:22–23 ESV.

[43] 2 Corinthians 3:17–18 ESV.

[44] Romans 8:19–23 ESV.

[45] 1 Corinthians 15:22–26 ESV.

[46] Romans 6:4 ESV.

[47] 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17, 20–21 ESV.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Harvard Law Professor Accepts Jesus As God!

KANSAS CITY, Mo.(from Tommy´s Window)

—Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary students were addressed as the“ladies and gentlemen of the jury” as Michael Whitehead provided evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Whitehead, interim president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has practiced law in Kansas City, Mo., for 25 years.

Before making his case, Whitehead explained how Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf came to the realization in the mid-1800s that the resurrection of Jesus is true. Greenleaf, who authored a three-volume treatise on the law of evidence, was one of the foremost lawyers of the century. As an agnostic, he saw no credible evidence that there is a God until he was challenged by students to apply the rules of evidence to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Greenleaf took the dare, and set out to prove the simple premise that “dead men stay dead.”

To demonstrate how Greenleaf came to his conclusion, Whitehead asked his audience to act as the jury and to treat the gospel accounts as eyewitness testimony given by deposition in a courtroom on the legal issue: “What happened to the dead body of Jesus?” Whitehead explained that the rules of evidence allow deposition testimony, even of dead witnesses, as well as “ancient documents more than 20 years old” under exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Calling his “first witness,” referring to John 19:38–42, Whitehead noted the “preparations” of the body of Jesus. The passage outlines the burial custom of the Jews — strips of linen were wrapped around the body interwoven, in this case, with 100 pounds of spices. Basically, Jesus’ body was in a 100-pound body cast, Whitehead said. The next witness was Matthew, who stated in chapter 27,verse 60, of his deposition that Jesus was buried in a borrowed tomb sealed with “a great stone.”
Whitehead quoted lawyer-engineer J. Frank Morrison that the rock may have weighed one and a half to two tons. These were the “protections” given to the body of Jesus, Whitehead noted. Continuing his deposition in verses 62–66, Matthew said highly trained Roman guards guarded the tomb and the seal of Rome was affixed to the stone. The death penalty was certain for any trespasser and for the guard unit if the seal were ever broken. Yet, in spite of the preparations, the protections and the precautions, the facts in evidence are that the stone was rolled far away from the entrance on the Sunday morning, and the body was gone. So, Whitehead asked, “What happened to the body?”

The first theory ever offered was labeled by Whitehead as “the body snatchers theory,” that the friends of Jesus must have stolen the body. In fact, in Matthew’s “deposition” it was cited that the guards later testified that “while they were asleep” the disciples stole the body. Whitehead called the guards’ story “bought and paid for testimony” because it is “self-impeaching.” The guards said they were asleep, so how could they have known what happened? Also it’s unlikely they would
have been asleep, because if that were true it meant they failed at the guard and would die.

A second theory was called the “swoon theory,” made popular by the book, The Passover Plot. The theory, as recapped by Whitehead, holds that maybe Jesus didn’t really die but was drugged so He would look dead. He was put in the tomb, where the cool air revived Him. He then escaped from the tomb and was mistaken for a risen Savior.
But, Whitehead asked, what about the testimony in John 19:33–34 that Jesus was pierced in the side with a spear, and that blood and water flowed out? Modern physiologists know this is proof of death, Whitehead said, adding that the Roman guards were professional executioners who knew death, and Jesus was dead.
Beyond this, the swoon theory ignores the other facts in evidence regarding the 100-pound body cast left behind on the slab, the two-ton boulder, and the sentries guarding the tomb and the Roman seal with their lives, Whitehead said.

The resurrection theory, based on the disciples’ testimonies, is the only one that fits all the facts and evidence, Whitehead said.

The disciples died martyrs’ deaths to attest to their testimony that Jesus was alive again on Sunday and was seen for 40 days thereafter, Whitehead said. Jesus said He did it because He is God, dying for man’s sin, offering resurrection life eternally for all who will receive Him, Whitehead recounted.

When Greenleaf realized that the evidence proves Jesus is God, he received Christ as his Savior and Lord and it changed his life, Whitehead said. “If Jesus was alive again in 33 A.D.,” Whitehead concluded,“He’s alive today because He is God. You can receive Him by repentance and faith. That will change your life, and that is the message of Easter.”

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Divine Healing: Where Healings Evangelists Disagree

Chapter 6 by Peter Amsterdam

While those involved in healing ministries agree on many fundamental points, one point on which there is some divergence is their interpretation of why God does or doesn’t heal each person who is prayed for.

The healing evangelists and theologians whose material we studied on the topic of healing—with the exception of Curry Blake—all believe that while God heals, one should not expect that every time you pray for people they will be healed instantly, or in some cases even in this life.

Curry Blake teaches that the person who prays is the one responsible to have the faith for the healing, and if the person isn’t healed, then the fault lies with the person praying. He teaches this to those who are participating in or are entering into the ministry of healing. I don’t think that he’s making an across-the-board statement that, for example, if Christian parents (who aren’t involved in a healing ministry) are praying for their sick child and the child doesn’t get well, or even dies, it’s the parents’ fault for not having enough faith.

There are others (none of whom I have quoted in this series) who believe that if someone is prayed for and doesn’t recover, then the fault lies with the sick person for not having enough faith. Some also believe that in a case where a child of Christian parents dies, the parents or others who prayed are responsible for not having enough faith.

John and Sonja Decker, Don Dunkerley, as well as various theologians whose work I studied, and many other Christian teachers, all believe that God miraculously heals, but that He doesn’t heal every time; that there are times when He chooses not to do so for reasons that are His. They explain that God is sovereign, that He has His reasons for what He does and allows, and that those reasons are often beyond our comprehension.

They also comment that it’s unfair and cruel for people to blame a parent for not having enough faith for a child’s healing. It’s very interesting that both Curry Blake and Don Dunkerley had a child who died, and that this loss was instrumental in starting them off in their healing ministries.

Curry Blake teaches that God won’t fail His Word, and that when you pray for someone’s healing, God will heal, and if He doesn’t, there is something wrong—not with God, but with the faith of the person praying. He says:

So if you don’t get anything else, just get perseverance, get that tenacity, get that grit to just dig in and go, “The Bible says this [that if you pray for the sick, they will be healed], and it will be this no matter what.” And you just keep on plowing through. If anything gets in your way, if you ever hear a “no,” it’s the Devil. Do you understand? Because God won’t say “no,” because all the promises are in Christ yea, and in Him, Amen. So if you hear a “no,” it’s not Jesus, it’s not God, because they say the same thing. It’s a devil. So just refuse to take it. And when you do, you watch what happens.[1]

Jesus was not just saying, “I will do it.” He was saying, “I will always do it because it is My intense desire and longing to act on My nature, which is to deliver.”[2]

I do not believe in “hindrances,” as used by most Christians. It usually goes along with … “God won’t heal you until …” There is no reason why God won’t heal you. God is not the one holding back your healing. Even the Devil can’t hold back your healing any more than he could hold back your salvation once you decided to get saved. The only way the Devil can hold back your healing is by convincing you that you are not healed and that God has a reason for not healing you. We usually call these reasons “sacred cows,” because they are the traditions of man (and the doctrines of devils) that must be destroyed.[3]

It’s kind of like this: When they get healed, give glory to God. If they don’t get healed, it’s your fault. That’s a pretty good deal on God’s end, but that’s kind of what you have to think about, and then you have to realize what’s going on.[4]

Your Commander in Chief has given you everything you need to win, and any time you don’t win, it’s because you failed to use a tool or a weapon that He has provided. Simple as that.[5]

John and Sonja Decker have a different point of view:

The truth is, the Lord has provided a means by which His body, working with the Holy Spirit, can facilitate healing in those coming to Him in faith. He is not only able to heal us, He is willing. We contend in prayer with the best understanding and leading we have, and leave the rest in the hands of a gracious and loving Lord.

God in His infinite wisdom has the answer for those who are not healed. This remains a mystery to any honest minister who preaches that Jesus Christ is our Healer. Our experience is that not everyone is healed. Many are, but not all.

When we carefully examine the God of the Old Covenant, there were sometimes conditions surrounding the God who heals. Jesus Christ inaugurates the New Covenant with better promises, one of which is healing. He is the same sovereign God of both covenants. We must rely on His mercy and not on our desire, our effort, or our faith formulas.

To not include this biblical principle in our discussion regarding divine healing is to ignore the sovereignty of a loving God who ultimately decides who receives healing and who does not. We pray for the sick, not because He guarantees healing; we pray because He has declared that He is willing! The final outcome rests with Him.[6]

Dunkerley expresses his belief in this way:

When Jesus said of us, “They will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well” (Mark 16:18), He did not say that everyone would get well or that those who did would be healed instantly.

In the same passage He promised deliverance from potentially fatal accidents (snakebites) and from those who would murder us for the sake of the Gospel (deadly poison). But surely Christians have died in fatal accidents; and Jesus taught that many would be martyred for the faith (Matthew 24:9).[7] He specifically predicted the martyrdom of Peter (John 21:18–19).[8] The promised healings and rescues will happen often enough to commend the Gospel to unbelievers, but they are not promised for every single instance.

The Kingdom of God came with the first coming of Christ, who preached that “the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matthew 4:17). He demonstrated the power of that Kingdom as He advanced it against the kingdom of darkness by healing the sick and casting out demons (Matthew 4:23–25). But the Kingdom of God did not come in its fullness. That awaits the Second Coming of Christ, “when He hands over the kingdom of God to the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24–25).

So the Kingdom of God is here and, in another sense, not yet. The sick are healed, but not all of them, and not all instantaneously and completely. The presence of the Kingdom encourages us to pray for ourselves, that it may be true of us that “the power of the Lord [is] present . . . to heal the sick” (Luke 5:17). The absence of the consummated Kingdom keeps us from discouragement when we do not see the powerful results we would like.[9]

We have many questions about the mysteries of God’s sovereign will. Perhaps the best answer is the one Moses gave: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

God has revealed many things to us, but there are secret things He has chosen not to reveal. The answers to our questions about why evil exists, why all are not brought to Christ, why some (including some very righteous persons) suffer and others do not, why some we pray for are healed and others (whom we may pray for more earnestly) are not—all these are included in the realm of the secret things.[10]

As you can see, there is a major difference in outlook between what Curry Blake teaches and what others teach on this particular issue. It must be pointed out that all of those quoted have successful healing ministries. Clearly, whether one believes that everyone should get healed when they get prayed for, or believes that there are times when some people don’t get healed because God chooses not to heal them at that time or in their lifetime, doesn’t affect whether the Lord uses these men and women in their healing ministries.

Both points of view can have their downsides. If you believe that God will always heal the sick person when they are prayed for, without exception, then when He doesn’t, you have to place the blame somewhere and assume a lack of faith on someone’s part. In a sense it both limits God and opens the door for condemnation on the part of whoever gets the blame for the failure.

If you believe that there are times when God chooses not to heal in this life, then when you pray for the sick and they aren’t healed right away, it might be easier to give up and not keep praying and fighting for healing, when perhaps more persistent prayer would bring healing.

In listening to and watching Curry Blake’s classes, something that I found inspiring and faith-building was his conviction regarding God’s Word—if God said it, it will happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. There is a certain uplifting simplicity within this stance. Maria and I agree that what God says, He will perform; that His Word is settled in heaven; that His promises are promises we can stand on. We also believe that God is God, that He is almighty, that His ways are higher than ours, and that in His divine wisdom and understanding, He may have reasons which are beyond our understanding for not healing someone when we pray for them. We believe that the ever-compassionate and loving God sometimes does or allows things that to our human way of thinking don’t seem fair, or may seem as if He is failing to keep His word or answer our heartfelt prayers. We believe that’s His prerogative, that He knows more than we do, that He knows the future, that He has His reasons, and that His reasons are based in love. Trusting God, even if it seems to us that He’s not keeping His word or answering our prayers, takes faith—perhaps as much faith as it does to believe God for His healing.

In his teaching, Curry Blake states that no one ever learns anything from sickness, that nothing good can come from being sick.—That since sickness is originally due to the fall of man, to the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and is part of the curse, nothing good can come from it.

Others with healing ministries teach that God can and does use sickness in some cases to draw those who are sick closer to Him; that when God doesn’t heal, the patience and faith the sick person needs to sustain them through the illness can draw the person closer to the Lord, and it often does.

While we can admire the conviction with which Curry Blake teaches, his passion for healing the sick, and his faith in God’s Word—all of which inspire us to trust God for healing and instill in us a greater desire to pray for the sick—at the same time I find roadblocks in his definiteness. My personal experience has taught me that not everyone who gets prayed for gets healed, and that those who endure sickness and pain often do gain important lessons or spiritual growth from the experience. I’ve seen and read about the lives of those who have physical infirmities and because of those infirmities have helped countless others find the Lord. In times of sickness, I have learned things about myself, or about my connection with the Lord, which have helped me in the long term.

While it’s a good thing to stand on God’s Word, to know that God has promised to, and does, answer prayer, I think it’s important to face certain truths—such as that not every prayer is answered in the manner we expect, and that sometimes God chooses not to answer immediately or in a way that we see it as His answer. God is greater than we are, and while we should claim His Word and stand on it and trust Him thoroughly, we need to understand that His ways are higher than ours and that He, in His infinite love and wisdom, may do or allow things in our lives or those of others that we don’t understand.

To demand that God answer every prayer for healing in a way that we expect, and, if that prayer is not answered, or is answered differently than we would have hoped, to put the blame on someone, in my opinion takes away from God’s power, from His sovereignty. It’s saying that we know better than God. God has more dimensions than we do. He knows so much more than we do—He knows supremely better than we do what’s best for each individual.

I believe that God heals people who are prayed for. Sometimes He heals instantaneously, sometimes progressively. Some He heals in this lifetime, and some He heals eternally through taking them home to Him. Whether God heals someone in this lifetime or in eternity, He is compassionate and loving. I believe it’s best to follow His Word by praying for the sick in obedience to His commands, trusting that as you pray, God will answer, and then leave the way He answers in His hands, and not try to place blame on someone—yourself, or others—if a healing doesn’t take place every time.

At the same time, we also need to remember that there are many promises of healing in God’s Word; that Jesus, the apostles, many believers in the early church and throughout Christian history, including nowadays, have used healing in their witness, as well as for one another. They have prayed for the sick and people were supernaturally healed. What I admire about Dunkerley, the Deckers, Blake, and those in TFI who have taken up this ministry of healing as part of their witness, is their passion for healing, their desire to use God’s power for physical healing, and through it the greatest healing of all—salvation. I may not agree with everything these healing evangelists teach, but I love that they pray and expect to see God’s hand move to heal, even if they know He may not heal in this life every time. I love that they stand on God’s promises and pray for the sick, and as they do so, some of those they pray for are supernaturally healed. I admire their faith and their willingness to minister to others in such a wonderful way. I believe that they have found a powerful way to preach the Gospel, one which many more Christians, including TFI members, could utilize.

(Next in this series: In Conclusion)

[1] DHT Video 9.

[2] DHT Manual 4.

[3] DHT Manual 4.

[4] DHT Audio 5.

[5] DHT Audio 7.

[6] DWJD 3.

[7] Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake (Matthew 24:9 ESV).

[8] “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This He said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this He said to him, “Follow Me” (John 21:18–19 ESV).

[9] HE 53–54.

[10] HE 68.

Six Reasons Small Talk Is Very Important!

--And How To Get Better At It

Brett Nelson, Forbes, March 30, 2012

I’m not a small-talk fan. “Hot enough for you today?” Who cares, I can’t do anything about it. “Pollen’s really bad this year, huh?” Yes.
So what’s the point of it all? Why don’t we just agree to ride the elevator or wait at the DMV in peace?
Because small talk is where it all begins—and if you want to get somewhere, it helps, we’re told, to start at the beginning.
If that logic doesn’t satisfy, and because bullet points are comforting, here are six reasons that small talk can have a big impact (not least on the 20% of U.S. citizens who aren’t working or actively looking for work but who’d really like a job):

—You Have No Idea Where It Will Go. Small talk is a gift rarely found in nature or the financial markets: It is a free option—that is, an investment with no initial cost, no risk (other than a temporarily bruised ego) and unlimited upside. Small talk can lead to a host of outcomes, from a merely pleasant exchange to the signing of multimillion-dollar business deal. When a free option comes along, you take it—every time.

—It Makes You Smarter. A recent study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that friendly, social interaction can boost our ability to solve problems—as, say, working a crossword puzzle might. That’s because, as Oscar Ybarra, a psychologist at the university explained: “Some social interactions induce people to try to read others’ minds and take their perspective on things.” (“Social” being the operative word: When conversations had a competitive edge, cognitive performance didn’t budge.)

—It Feels Good. Some days the very thought of returning a verbal volley can feel exhausting. Think about it, though: How many times did a little light banter leave you feeling…a little lighter? Humans are social beings: We crave connection—that’s why Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is worth $17.5 billion—and small talk, while maybe not scintillating, is a way to connect.

—It Opens Your Eyes. Small talk makes you pay attention. Yoga types call it “living in the present.” I call it “putting down your stupid smart phone long enough to have a conversation with a human being in three dimensions.” Whatever you call it, it’s a good thing.

—You’ll Be Liked. If you want, as the book says, to make friends and influence people, being liked is important. People like people who are generous (and confident) enough to engage them. Small talk isn’t just about being gregarious or entertaining—it’s a gesture of respect.

—You Have No Choice. Getting a job, working with colleagues, winning new clients, entertaining existing ones—all of it requires small talk. Want to be on a path to the 1%? Better have the gift of gab. As Scott Hoover, associate professor of finance at Washington and Lee University, writes in his excellent primer How To Get A Job On Wall Street: “In trying to generate business, the deal pitch is obviously critical. What is not so obvious is that simple, seemingly innocuous conversation with potential clients can be just as important. Companies want to hire people who can think on their feet.”

Now that you’re convinced small talk is worth the effort, here’s how to get better at it. Ready? Practice. Try stuff out, see what works. That’s it. As for technique, remember the basics: make eye contact, drop a compliment (if you mean it), share a common experience (while keeping the focus on the other person), and don’t be too self-conscious.

Short on confidence? No problem. Even big dogs have confidence issues. Here’s some sage advice from psychiatrist, executive coach and Forbes contributor Steven Berglas:
“Building self-confidence is a two-phase process. The first phase involves purging yourself of self-doubt; in the second, you build up your confidence. It’s like erecting a skyscraper: First you clear the site and lay a solid foundation, then you stack the superstructure. How high you go–how much confidence you muster–is up to you.”
And, of course, don’t forget to check the latest weather report.

Monday, April 2, 2012

In the Sweetness of the Morning

A compilation

A moment in the morning,
Ere the cares of day begin,
Ere the heart's wide door is open,
For the world to enter in,
Oh, then alone with Jesus,
In the silence of the morning,
In heavenly, sweet communion,
Let your joyful day be born.—Author unknown



I met God in the morning
When the day was at its best,
And His presence came like sunrise,
Like a glory in my breast.

All day long the Presence lingered,
All day long He stayed with me,
And we sailed in perfect calmness
O'er a very troubled sea.

Other ships were blown and battered,
Other ships were sore distressed,
But the winds that seemed to drive them
Brought to us a peace and rest.

Then I thought of other mornings,
With a keen remorse of mind,
When I too had loosed the moorings,
With the Presence left behind.

So I think I know the secret,
Learned from many a troubled way:
You must seek Him in the morning
If you want Him through the day!—Ralph Spaulding Cushman



“Come up in the morning … and present thyself unto me in the top of the mount.”—Exodus 34:2.

The morning is the time fixed for my meeting the Lord. The very word morning is as a cluster of rich grapes. Let us crush them, and drink the sacred wine. In the morning! Then God means me to be at my best in strength and hope. I have not to climb in my weakness. In the night I have buried yesterday's fatigue, and in the morning take a new lease of energy. Blessed is the day whose morning is sanctified! Successful is the day whose first victory was won in prayer! Holy is the day whose dawn finds thee on the top of the mount!—Mrs. Charles E. Cowman1



My Father, I am coming. Nothing on the mean plain shall keep me away from the holy heights. At Thy bidding I come, so Thou wilt meet me. Morning on the mount! It will make me strong and glad all the rest of the day so well begun.—Joseph Parker



Still, still with Thee, when purple morning breaketh,
When the bird waketh, and the shadows flee;
Fairer than morning, lovelier than daylight,
Dawns the sweet consciousness, I am with Thee.

Alone with Thee, amid the mystic shadows,
The solemn hush of nature newly born;
Alone with Thee in breathless adoration,
In the calm dew and freshness of the morn.

As in the dawning o'er the waveless ocean,
The image of the morning-star doth rest,
So in this stillness, Thou beholdest only
Thine image in the waters of my breast.

When sinks the soul, subdued by toil, to slumber,
Its closing eyes look up to Thee in prayer;
Sweet the repose, beneath Thy wings o'er shadowing,
But sweeter still to wake and find Thee there.—Harriet Beecher Stowe



My mother's habit was every day, immediately after breakfast, to withdraw for an hour to her own room, and to spend that hour in reading the Bible, in meditation and prayer. From that hour, as from a pure fountain, she drew the strength and sweetness which enabled her to fulfill all her duties, and to remain unruffled by the worries and pettinesses which are so often the trial of narrow neighborhoods. As I think of her life, and all it had to bear, I see the absolute triumph of Christian grace in the lovely ideal of a Christian lady. I never saw her temper disturbed; I never heard her speak one word of anger, of calumny, or of idle gossip; I never observed in her any sign of a single sentiment unbecoming to a soul which had drunk of the river of the water of life, and which had fed upon manna in the barren wilderness.—Frederic William Farrar



Give God the blossom of the day. Do not put Him off with faded leaves.—Mrs. Charles E. Cowman2



In the early morning hours,
'Twixt the night and day,
While from earth the darkness passes
Silently away;

Then 'tis sweet to talk with Jesus
In thy chamber still
For the coming day and duties
Ask to know His will.

Then He'll lead the way before you,
Mountains laying low;
Making desert places blossom,
Sweet'ning Marah's flow.

Would you know this life of triumph,
Victory all the way?
Then put God in the beginning
Of each coming day.—Mrs. Charles E. Cowman3



My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.—Psalm 5:3



I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defense and refuge in the day of my trouble.—Psalm 59:16



O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is.—Psalm 63:1



And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.—Mark 1:35



I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.—Proverbs 8:17

Compiled by Philip Martin. Published on Anchor April 2012.

1 Streams in the Desert.
2 Streams in the Desert.
3 Streams in the Desert.

A secular case against gay marriage

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage-wintery-knight/ Go to original article to be able to activate the many links available. Thanks

By Wintrey Knight:

Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against abortion rights is here.

Roxeanne de Luca challenged socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage, so here’s mine.

I can’t possible cover everything, but I will make three arguments.

Same-sex marriage is bad for children
Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business
Same-sex marriage is bad for public health
Let’s look at these in order.

1. SSM is bad for children

Traditional marriage is beneficial for children for 4 reasons:

traditional marriages last longer than same-sex unions
traditional marriages are more peaceful than same-sex unions
traditional marriages offer children male and female influences
traditional marriages model life-long love between men and women
Space permits me to only discuss the first two, using this paper from the Family Research Council.

That research paper compares same-sex couples and heterosexual married couples, in the following ways:

relationship duration
monogamy vs. promiscuity
relationship commitment
number of children being raised
health risks
rates of intimate partner violence

It turns out that same-sex unions are not as good for children as traditional marriage, on those measures.

Relationship duration

Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)

Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

Monogamy vs Promiscuity

Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%

Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.

Rates of intimate partner violence

Married men and women experience significantly less intimate partner violence than do homosexual men and women.

Sources: “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; “Intimate Partner Violence,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.

There is a lot more evidence cited in the research paper. Read the whole thing.

Consider this article by Dr. Trayce Hansen about which family configuration is best for children. The title is “Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children”.

Excerpt:

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21)

The rest of the article, with references, is here.

Research from the Heritage Foundation shows that traditional marriage is the safest place for women and children – women and children are much less likely to be the victims of domestic violence or violent crime when they are in a married home. Another Heritage Foundation research paper shows that child poverty is greatly reduced when children grow up in a married home.

So what do we learn from this? The evidence is clear: traditional marriage is better for children than same-sex marriage.

2. SSM is bad for civil society and business

SSM will increase the power of the state to regulate civil society and business. Let me quickly summarize the evidence for this to give you an idea how it would work, using Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse’s testimony to the Rhode Island legislature.

Excerpt:

Far from limiting the power of the state, your version of equality has become a tool for the hostile takeover of civil society by the state. Churches are already under attack for daring to dissent from the new state-imposed Orthodoxy that marriage is whatever the government says it is.7

Parents are losing the right to direct the education of their own children.8 Foster parents in the UK must submit to the state’s views about marriage.9 Reputable adoption agencies have been put out of business.

And the pettiness of some of the complaints brought by same sex couples is simply staggering. Christian bed and breakfast owners have been sued for not allowing unmarried couples to stay in double rooms. They would have gladly rented them separate rooms, but that was not good enough for the thought police.10 Same sex couples have brought legal complaints against wedding photographers, as if there were a constitutional right to have your picture taken by the person of your choice.11

The details of the events she is describing can be found in the references for her speech.

Here are a few more examples of this infringement on civil society and business:

Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired
Law firm that agreed to defend marriage pressured by gay groups
California Democrats mandate gay history in public schools
Brown University students attack pro-marriage sign at demonstration
Queen’s University feminist professor says that polygamy should be permitted
Christianity under fire from secular governments in San Francisco and Quebec
Christians forced to perform same-sex marriages
UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches
Christian business owners found guilty for disagreeing with homosexuality
Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks
Christian couple barred from having foster children
Christian student loses case with Eastern Michigan University
Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions
Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)
Notice how same-sex marriage impacts businesses, clergy, non-profits, etc. and even leads to polygamy. Once you decide that marriage is not about putting guidelines around sex and producing and nurturing the next generation, but about letting consenting adults do whatever they want, then there are no rules.

Now consider this article about how the breakdown of marriage changes society and government, written by Dr. Frank Turek.

Excerpt:

The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

So what? People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.

Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland,the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes,“When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs taxpayers $112 billion per year!).

No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.

So there are financial and social costs to the breakdown of marriage. The more government has to spend to deal with the problems SSM creates, the higher taxes will go, and the less money is left in the hands of working families to accomplish their own plans.

To be fair, I think that sex education and no-fault divorce are worse threats to marriage than same-sex marriage. I would like to see more research to persuade people that chastity before marriage is important, like this research , so that we could see our way clear to push for policies that encourage young people to wait longer before having sex. And I would like to see other measures taken to strengthen marriage from no-fault divorce, such as a shared parenting laws. But SSM is the current topic, so I’ll stick with that here.

3. SSM is bad for public health

Now we come to the sensitive part. We should not be encouraging SSM because it normalizes homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle is associated with harmful behaviors.

Consider this recent Centers for Disease Control study. Life Site News discusses the findings in this article.

Excerpt:

Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.”

Specifically, gay or lesbian students had higher rates for seven of the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).

The study also found that only 1.3% of students self-identified as gay or lesbian at the eight sites where they were asked their “sexual identity.” A median of 3.7% said they were bisexual.

Researchers analyzed data from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys conducted during 2001–2009 in seven states and six large urban school districts. These sites collected data on high school students’ sexual identity (heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, or unsure), sex of sexual contacts (sexual contact with the opposite sex only, with the same sex only, or with both sexes), or both.

The study, “Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9–12 in Selected Sites—Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, United States, 2001–2009,” was published as a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary.

Dr. Trayce Hansen summarizes some of the previously published research on the health care effects of the gay lifestyle.

Excerpt:

Non-heterosexual behavior leads to increased risk of psychological and physical disorders

Sadly, the research is also clear that individuals who adopt non-heterosexual lifestyles are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened lifespan. Schools should not affirm and thereby encourage young people to adopt lifestyles more likely to lead to such devastation. (To review these specific studies see references 5-10 below).

The footnotes she mentions are in the original article. That article also debunks the “gay gene” myth using identical twin studies, which show that only 10-11% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation.

Consider how society treats the practice of cigarette smoking. Certainly, we don’t want to coerce people into not smoking – we want them to have the choice. But we should definitely not lie to people about the health effects of smoking. It does no good to tell people that dangerous things are not really dangerous. I would rather hurt someone’s feelings gently by telling them the truth than see them suffer real harm after telling them lies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have seen three reasons why we should not legalize same-sex marriage:

Same-sex marriage is bad for children
Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business
Same-sex marriage is bad for public health
Notice that there are no arguments in this post that require a religious worldview or belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Further study

For a more academic case against SSM, see this peer-reviewed paper on traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, authored by two guys from Princeton University and one guy from the University of Notredame. One of those guys is the famous Robert P. George. For some simple, practical tips on defending traditional marriage, check out this tip sheet from the National Organization for Marriage.

You can also watch the videos from a formal academic debate on same-sex marriage held at the University of Central Florida, featuring Dr. Michael Brown. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse also debated same-sex marriage at Columbia University in a formal academic debate. You can see her give a lecture on same-sex marriage at Houston Baptist University here, as well.

Share this:

38 Responses

Stan says:
06/27/2011 at 5:34 PM
Look, you may CALL it a “non-religious case”, but face it. The ONLY reason anyone would be against the concept is if they are a bigoted, hating, homophobe. I mean, sure, there’s all that research and logic and all, but it must REALLY be hate on your part … right?

[end sarcasm]

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 9:00 PM
Ha ha ha! I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad, just stating the facts.

REPLY
Jonathan H says:
06/27/2011 at 11:41 PM
Stan… Respectfully, what do you mean by homophobe? If you mean anyone who disagrees with individuals who pursue intimate and romantic same-sex relationships then you are homophobic-phobic since you disagree with the individual who disagrees with same sex relationships. Now, if you mean phobia in a way that means being scared then I agree that no one should be afraid of any human person(LGBTQ Community) who has just as much value as anyone else. But if that is what you mean by that Wintry is scared of anyone in the LGBTQ community I think there is a misunderstanding as I did not sense any fear in his case.

Now, Wintry knight can come to a objective conclusion about SSM despite his religious affiliation. To say he cannot and denouncing the evidence he has presented for traditional marriage between one man and one woman then you have committed the Genetic Fallacy. This fallacy means you did not look at the evidence at all but simply dismissed it as in error based on Wintry’s worldview. Any individual in the LGBTQ community can reach a objective conclusion on same sex marriage. Any person who denounces there claims as being error because they are gay is committing the Genetic Fallacy as well. To counter their claims would have to be based on the facts not the person behind it. The best your comments can assert are your own subjective opinion which you are entitled too but that is as far as it goes.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 11:43 PM
Oh he was kidding! He was just being sarcastic and anticipating the response from the other side!

REPLY
Stan says:
06/28/2011 at 10:38 AM
Just for clarification — and Wintery has already said it — I was kidding. My “response” is the response you can expect. “Don’t worry about logic. Forget about studies. Don’t even think about reality. If we want to do it, you are obligated to support us or you are a mean, bigoted person. Opposing what we want to do can only be motivated by hate.” My comment was, in other words, a congratulations to Wintery for reason over stupidity.

REPLY
David Andrews says:
03/17/2012 at 5:27 AM
You call it hate…I call it disapproval..and disapproval does not equate to hate.

When homosexuals label those that disapprove- not of homosexuals themselves- but of homosexual behaviour, then they are quick to label them as some kind of bad person…..that is unfair and is a quick way to bringing discussion and debate to a close……

I am not a homophobe, but I am entitled to defendable freedom of speech. I do not agree with homosexual behaviour and research so far does not support fully the notion that people are born gay.

As a social researcher I have come across volumes of research that would challenge the validity of promoting homosexuality in terms of health, sexual promiscuity, indoctrinating children concerning queer sexuality…

Homosexuality is not in any way equal to heterosexuality, however those in power today blindly strive to apply equality to a minute community (1%) identifiable by their sexual practices alone; a sexuality that carries a completely different set of social outcomes.

Society expects us to “Tolerate” a variety of circumstances and situations…..however “Tolerance” does not spell approval.

REPLY
Glenn E. Chatfield says:
06/27/2011 at 8:15 PM
Well done, W.K. Good collection of resources, too. This is a keeper!

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 8:46 PM
Thank you! I was up till 4 AM last night working on it.

REPLY
IFTYS says:
06/29/2011 at 3:42 PM
If only the folks in New York would have done a little investigation, maybe, just maybe, they may not have passed the gay mariage ammendment.

REPLY
Jape Jackanapes says:
06/27/2011 at 8:55 PM
SSM is bad for liberty. Think of the entailments of forcing a sexual orientation as a civil right. I don’t even recognize heterosexuality as a constitutional right. And once the identity politics of the lgbt agenda is made law where then do you draw the line? Does NAMBLA have a case as an oppressed group with an alleged immutable orientation?
God gives us an identity but that does not mean that some can not adopt a false identity then try to make moral arguments about hatred, bigotry, and acceptance.
Even the secular idea that monogamous life time relationships are a privilege that is granted only to a limited and defined group for eligibility speaks to Marriage not being open to all types of unions.

REPLY
Neil says:
06/27/2011 at 8:58 PM
Very, very well done. You saved me a lot of time. I’m just going to link to this instead of making my own.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 10:55 PM
Thank you Neil! Be sure and check out Jim Wallace’s post as well below.

REPLY
Ryan K. says:
06/27/2011 at 10:25 PM
The most obvious reason is that marriage by definition means a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex is a different type of union than two people of the opposite sex.

This is so obvious that even a kid can understand it. Two men is different than a man and a woman, so by definition is the type of relationship and union that they will have.

Saying gay marriage is like saying, “male sorority,” or “woman fraternity.” By definition it just does not work.

REPLY
Roxeanne de Luca says:
06/27/2011 at 11:31 PM
BRAVO!

Thank you for answering the call.

One of my friends (Tieki, in fact) went to a so-con seminar and learned about the reasons to not have SSM. As she said, “There’s actually reasons!”. Those aren’t articulated very frequently, or as publicly, and that leads us vulnerable to charges of bigotry.

What I don’t want to have happen is for us to be behind the 8 ball like “we” were with Roe and abortion. I have this dream of every social conservative being able to articulate a secular, logical argument for their beliefs, so that we aren’t trying to make that argument after things have gone drastically wrong (more wrong than they are now). Face it, once SSM is in, it’ll take a Constitutional Amendment to get it out.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 11:38 PM
I agree. When I wrote this, I had Frank Turek in mind. I want Frank to be able to have a job, not to get fired for his beliefs. That means that we need to have a culture that welcomes his view on marriage. Either we get more people to articulate the reasons for marriage or we are done for. I would especially like to have Protestant evangelicals like myself step up to the plate.

REPLY
Rumpole says:
06/28/2011 at 8:18 AM
Were you aware that the United Nations just declared that Internet Access is now a Human Right? Extraordinary.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 10:11 AM
I was aware! I’m sure this is going to cost me more money.

REPLY
Rich Bordner says:
06/28/2011 at 9:03 AM
Good stuff, WK.

REPLY
desmognathus says:
06/28/2011 at 12:50 PM
Great job, Wintery!

REPLY
Jim says:
06/28/2011 at 12:57 PM
Here is my article from two years ago in an attempt to do the same thing:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Should_Government_Legalize_Same_Sex_Marriage

I focused on the impact it has on the next generation and developed the acronym KIDS to help communicate the issue…

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 1:14 PM
I will blog on this later in the week.

REPLY
Jennifer Roback Morse says:
06/28/2011 at 2:40 PM
the reason there are so many arguements in favor of Marriage Without Adjectives (that is, just ordinary man/woman marriage) is that marriage touches so many aspects of human life and society. redefining marriage will change many, many things, including the definition of parenthood itself.
dr j

REPLY
John Doe says:
06/28/2011 at 4:49 PM
Oh NOES, Ms. de Luca, the leftists did not really want a sincere and well–reasoned response. In fact, “shut up” they said, and let them make their arguements without serious objection.

REPLY
Ruth Institute Blog » A secular case against gay marriage says:
06/28/2011 at 5:20 PM
[...] Keep reading. Spread the word: [...]

REPLY
A secular case against gay marriage (via Wintery Knight) « That Mr. G Guy's Blog says:
06/28/2011 at 9:10 PM
[...] Roxeanne de Luca challenged socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage, so here's mine. I can't possible cover everything, but I will make three arguments. Same-sex marriage is bad for children Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business Same-sex marriage is bad for public health Let's look at these in order. 1. SSM is bad for children Traditional marriage is beneficial for children for 4 re … Read More [...]

REPLY
thatmrgguy says:
06/28/2011 at 9:15 PM
Compelling and articulate article. Thanks for doing the research a lot of us don’t have the time or the inclination to do.

I linked here from Haemet and have added you to my blogroll.

Mike G.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 9:21 PM
Thank you, Mr. G. Added you as well.

REPLY
A secular case against “same-sex marriage” « Eternity Matters says:
06/29/2011 at 12:17 PM
[...] points here, but the good news is that the Wintery Knight did a more thorough and masterful job in A secular case against gay marriage. I highly encourage you to read and bookmark it. The case against oxymoronic “same-sex [...]

REPLY
Retha says:
07/01/2011 at 11:02 AM
Great article, Wintery. I was divided about the issue – could see the point in arguments from both sides – until I read this.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
07/01/2011 at 11:20 AM
Thank you for reading, and for the encouragement!

REPLY
Crystal Hayward says:
07/02/2011 at 10:09 PM
I never though of it this way…you make excellent points/FACTS without using religion..think I might REPOST this (on m FB page) if that’s ok with you? Cheers!!

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
07/02/2011 at 10:52 PM
Yes it is OK with me!

REPLY
Michael says:
07/06/2011 at 6:30 AM
Excellent stuff, wK!!
Btw I’ve just set up a blog, and I have added you onto my blogroll. Soon I hope to start blogging through Grudem’s PATTB which you bought me. :)
Eternally grateful,
Michael! =D

REPLY
THE HORTON JOURNAL A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE says:
11/25/2011 at 9:59 AM
A most impressive study. I agree, this one is a keeper. Congratulations WK.

REPLY
Rodney Patrick says:
11/29/2011 at 7:37 PM
Thank you Wintery Knight, When SSM laws were passed by more states, I thought about what impact this was doing to my children and how they will view this issue. SSM goes against everything I was taught and the way I teach my children. I will never teach my children that SSM is good for them, because there is so more things wrong in SSM. They are our future and I want to give them the best opportunity I can.

REPLY
Daniel Pop says:
02/02/2012 at 6:25 AM
Wintery Knight, do you mind me posting this on my facebook?
Blessings.

REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
02/02/2012 at 9:36 AM
Not at all, please do post it on Facebook.

REPLY
lhf says:
02/28/2012 at 8:14 AM
An important point not raised is the slippery slope. If marriages between 2 men are legalized, why not 3? In the Netherlands, home of the first legalized same sex marriages, a threesome has been permitted to marry (a man and two women – is that polygamy?)

Let’s take another example. Hypothetically, I have worked all my life, have saved my money and have never married. My sister also has never married, but has not worked steadily and has not saved. At age 65 I retire and I wish to ensure that the survivor benefit of my pension goes to my sister. Can I marry her? If not, why not? Is it not a violation of her and my civil rights not to be able to marry? Should the reason we want to marry be considered? What if we were brother and sister? Children are not a problem because of our ages, so the usual arguments against incest wouldn’t apply.

What about group marriages? The polyamory and polygamy advocates are already making the same arguments that homosexuals make in favor of allowing them to marry. Why is it not a violationof the civil rights of polygamists to deny them the “right” to marry?

Can every human desire be transformed into a “civil right?” I have noticed that African Americans oppose same sex marriage at higher rates than whites. They resent the notion that homosexuals are using the language of the civil rights movement, by which they moved from slavery to full participation in American society, to advance a wholly incompatible agenda. It diminishes what has been an outstanding achievement – both for them and for the country as a whole.

The reason the state is involved in the marriage business is to ensure a legal bond between a father and his biological or legally adopted children. What happens to that bond in group marriages when no one knows which “partner” is the father of her children?

This issue needs open debate, however, to prevent this, the tactic of the proponents of same sex marriage is to shout down or stigmatize opponents. So the debate never occurs and proponents, with the help I might add of our major media outlets, are making gains. Unfortunately, the sad results will take years to become obvious to those who can’t think ahead to the obvious unintended consequences.

Recent Posts

Obama imposes 5-year oil drilling moratorium on Atlantic coast
Evan Sayet explains “How Modern Liberals Think”
Has the passage of Obamacare reduced health insurance premiums?
An apologetics reading plan for beginners
Friday night spies: Four more episodes of Danger Man
Obama suffers the most disastrous week of his Presidency
Is the Obama administration behind the leak of Israel’s plan to strike Iran?
Video: William Lane Craig and Peter Millican debate “Does God Exist?”
Government spending bankrupts our children and grandchildren
Scott Klusendorf will debate tonight at Bowling Green State University
Do gun registries solve crimes? Learning from the Canadian experience
What today’s young adults think of marriage, commitment and happiness
Books I Recommend

Australian apologist makes the case against gay marriage proposal

The Labor Party of Australia is trying to push for gay marriage, so Matthew Hamilton of Aristophrenium blog sent them an argument against it.

Excerpt:

Man-woman marriage is an important social good. As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriages produce children. The public purpose of marriage, therefore, associates the children produced from it to their father and likewise associates the father to their mother. This cohesiveness serves to foster the best environment within which to raise children2, over and above all other forms of family combinations, and is in this real sense, a unique arrangement to be promoted.

By contrast, same-sex unions, as a group, as a rule, and by nature, cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party. Homosexual unions are socially infertile; while some homosexual partnerships do involve children from previous relationships or conceived through IVF, these arrangements are intentionally designed to deny children the nurture of one or both of their biological parents. While two homosexuals can be loving parents, it defies common sense that a homosexual man can be a good “mother” to a child, and likewise that a homosexual woman can be a good “father” to a child. Author and lawyer Dawn Stefanowicz, writing of her experience growing up with a gay father, remarked: “What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring and protecting the women in his life3.”

I think it’s important to make those two points. Boys need to have a father as a role model and girls need to have a mother as a role model. And the children also get to see, up close, how men and women get along in a loving relationship that is not built on lust, but commitment. By the time children grow, their parents are already into middle-age, usually, and the affection is more likely to be based on self-sacrifice and commitment. It’s important for children to have that example of women caring for and listening to their husbands and husbands providing for and protecting their wives.

Hamilton also writes about the threat to religious liberty posed by gay activists:

Where same-sex marriage is legalised (and even in some instances where it is not yet legal), ordinary citizens, business owners, religious believers and not-for-profit organisations will have their religious liberties and values and freedom of speech curtailed:

In Jan 2011, hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull from Cornwall, UK, were ordered to pay $6000 in damages to a homosexual couple who sued them for declining to offer a room as it violated their hotel policy to only make board available to married couples4
In Illinois, Washington DC and Massachusetts, US, Catholic bishops voluntarily closed the Church’s adoption and foster-care organisations rather than comply with new non- discrimination laws following the legalising of same-sex marriage in those states which would have forced them to place children with same-sex couples5
Massachusetts, US, 2005, father David Parker was arrested after talking with his son’s school about opting his son out of mandatory pro-homosexuality teaching6. (Charges were later dropped.)
New Mexico, US, 2008, a Christian photographer was sued by a lesbian couple after refusing to shoot a gay wedding7
Canada, 2008, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was fined $5000 and banned from expressing his biblical understanding of homosexuality8
UK, Church of England lawyers state that legalising same-sex marriage in England will effectively force churches to comply9
UK, housing manager Adrian Smith was demoted10 after posting a criticism of the UK’s new gay rights law on his personal Facebook page, on his own time
Derbyshire, UK, Christians Mr and Mrs Johns denied the right to be foster parents11 after refusing to teach children in their care that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle
And recently in Canada, some provinces have introduced gay-activist propaganda into the schools, as well as making it illegal for homeschooling parents to tell their children that there is anything wrong morally with homosexuality.

Matt makes a pretty good case. I know that both the UK and Australia are both facing gay marriage bills right now. It’s always a good idea for pro-marriage, pro-family conservatives to be able to make a secular case against gay marriage. Here’s my case against same-sex marriage.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith